The hydrogen economy is a farce promogulated by existing energy companies who stand to make lots of money providing hydrogen by burning more and more fossil fuels.
Hydrogen can just as easily be produce through renewable resources such as wind, solar, tidal, and hydro power, as well as nuclear. Hydrogen-powered vehicles are coming, make no mistake about it. It's not a question of "if", but rather "when."
Centralizing the generation of the fuel at a hydrogen-generating station (even if run by fossil fuels) is still far better for the environment than spreading a bunch of fuel-burners all over our highways, as is the situation we currently have.
While the references indicate that the actual mileage is lower than what is claimed, the vehicles do get better gas mileage than standard automobiles.
But this is the "Big Lie" of Hybrids. Yes, they get better mileage, but it's not because they're hybrids. It's because they have extremely low CD's (co-efficients of drag), unusually hard and narrow tires, low-friction bearings, lightweight alloys and construction, thinner-than-usual safety glass, and a host of other ounce-pinching compromises. However, the fact that they still have to haul around a couple hundred pounds of lead batteries negates a lot of that efficiency.
Here's the thing they don't want you to know. If you took all that efficiency - the ultra-streamlined body, lightweight alloys and glass, low-friction tires and bearings, and everything else - and put it in a regular car with a small engine (a diesel Golf, a Civic, whatever), the regular car would get better mileage. But it wouldn't qualify technically as "low-emission", because it is always generating (an extremely small amount of) pollutants, while the hybrid has periods of zero-emissions.
Why don't people see this? If you put all that tech into a regular car, they'd get better mileage than hybrids. It's crystal clear.
Most good "popular music" was made at least 20 years ago. If you refer to Britney Spear, N'Sync or Bust-a-Rythm, then I suggess you change radio station once in a while, to hear some music for a change.
You obviously underestimate the scope of the RIAA. While, of course, the "bubble-gum" pop bands on the Top-40 radio stations are all signed to the RIAA, so are a great deal of lesser-known artists. Many of the groups I like are members of the RIAA, and you've probably never heard of them. They make good music, and a lot less than the "20 years" ago that you presume.
There's (unfortunately) more to the RIAA than Britney and NSYNC. They own pretty much everyone worth listening to.
Therefore, they are forcing you to either... 1. buy music with DRM or 2. pirate music without DRM
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "force". FWIW, nobody is "forcing" either of those 2 alternatives on anyone. People voluntarily choose to patronize those services.
Incidentally, you left off several other options, such as "buy a legal CD and rip it yourself." Nothing illegal about that.
Do remember that the recipient of an 800 call gets your phone number reported to them.
No they don't. They get a report of the number of complete and incomplete calls made from your area code, in the 3 different time-of-day codes (day, evening, and weekend). They'd see that 20 calls came from your area code, and the total number of minutes in each time-of-day category, but they wouldn't see the individual numbers that made the calls.
Yes, it does mean I have to carry around two or three devises instead of one.
I feel the exact opposite. I don't want to carry a pager, a phone, a gaming console, a radio, a PDA, a camera, and an MP3 player. That's too many devices to buy, too many to carry, too much money to spend, and too much to worry about getting stolen. I just want one device that can do all those things well, and cost less than $500.
We have the technology. Yes, I understand your point about how the individual devices can be "optimised" to do their own thing well, but technology is not static, and as we learn more and more about usability and integration, manufacturers become more adept at creating devices which fill multiple roles just as well as the separate devices would.
Incidentally, I don't own ANY of the devices listed above, precisely because I'm holding out for an "all-in-one" device, which should be along any year now.
What about people who get ripped off, then leave the seller a negative feedback, to which the seller retaliates and leaves them negative feedback? Then the buyer has a negative feedback on his record, and for what? For complaining about getting ripped off?
Your "100%" threshold seems a little high to me. It discourages people from ruffling feathers and leaving negative feedback in legitimate cases, for fear of tarnishing their own history to anything less than the flawless that buyers like you demand.
Start your own ebay. No one could monopolize the auction business on the internet, find some investor and start rolling.
Evidently, you're unfamiliar with the concept of software patents. You think Amazon can patent "one-click-purchasing," but eBay can't patent the online auction?
Granted, there are other online auctions out there, but they're not as good as eBay. Not because they just can't make a good online auction site, but because eBay has patented the key features that make their site superior.
At eBay you see only some sure_I_m_honest@hotmail.com address and that's only thing you really know about other end.
Well, that, and the feedback.
Take off the tinfoil hat. If someone has great feedback, you're just as safe trusting them as you would be trusting the stranger you just met at the flea market. Moreso, in fact, because you have no idea if the flea-market guy's customers are satisfied. OK, OK, with one notable exception.
Maybe Apple or some other company should start there own music company
Read up a little bit. Apple is legally prohibited from becoming a music company. There's already an "Apple Music" label out there, they were created around the same time as the Beatles. In order to avoid trademark disputes, when Apple Computer was founded (and subsequently litigated against by Apple Music), Apple Computer agreed to stay out of the music arena.
Incidentally, they're already over the line that they weren't supposed to cross, but offically becoming a full-blown recording label would put them squarely in violation of their agreement, and on the hook for billions.
What "factual inaccuracies" were in the NYT article? I don't deny the negative spin, but I don't recall anything that was actually, demonstrably, factually incorrect.
OK, so it's "stimulation" that's entering the device, entering into electronic circuitry, and causing it to function... but it's not power...
You're simply trying to stretch the definition of "powered" to suit your means, and you're incorrect. You're seeking to broaden "powered" to mean "anything that responds to power." If we take your specious reasoning to its logical extreme, then everything is "powered," because if you apply energy to it, it will do something. This is obviously untrue, otherwise the word "powered" becomes meaningless and redundant, because everything would be "powered."
I'm sorry, but "powered" has a very clear and well-defined definition. It means the object carries its own power source. That's it. That's all. Ugh, how can I make this clearer. Hmm, how about this: your passive RFID tag will respond to stimulation by outputting a signal. However, the power of that signal will always be less than the input power of the stimulant. That is, it is bound by the Law of Entropy. However, if it were "powered," then it would be capable of responding with more power than the amount of energy in the stimulant that triggered its response.
This horse is now officially dead. You don't have to agree with me, but the fact is, I am right. I'm not trying to convince you of my definition, but rather I'm simply trying to help you understand the definition. This is not a subjective idea that is open to debate; it is a simple fact. You claimed that passive RFID tags are "powered," and I'm simply trying to help you understand why that statement is incorrect under common vernacular.
[Re: AA Batteries]I can remember batteries running out more quickly when I was younger, and needing more of them. Although it could just be technology getting better.
You answered your own question there - modern electronics simply use less power, thanks to advances in solid-state electronics. Ergo, given a constant power source, they last longer.
The concept of a device that exists for the sole reason of monitoring my purchase, that I cannot remove once I have purchased it, and which continues to perform a monitoring function once within my home is abhorrant and unacceptable.
I really don't see what the big deal is. It's just a number, and can only be read from short range. Without the database, the number is practically meaningless.
So, let's sum up. Stimulation that enters electronic circuitry and causes it to function is not power.
Oh, no, it is "power" all right. But the simple fact that an object allows "power" to enter it doesn't mean the device is "powered." Take my bicycle-reflector/flashlight example. If I shine a light at both, they're both absorbing "power" and reflecting the beam back somewhere. However, only the flashlight is capable of generating light on its own. It carries a power source (batteries), while the reflector does not.
RFID technology will always use radio
Most likely, yes.
and always in the current frequency range.
Probably not, but it will always be bound by the laws of physics (that is, the power-to-range ratio).
OK, now to your bank account stuff. I'll concede that I made a couple assumptions that didn't hold up. The main one was probably that the US financial system is comparable to Canada's. I've done some research, and apparently, in the US, you have all kinds of different financial institutions that consequently, don't always communicate very well. As a result of this, apparently your framework is much more permissive of cash than ours up here in Canada. Up here, there are only 5 banks. Thus, the financial systems framework is quite well integrated, and retailers can rely on common standards much more readily than in the US. Apparently, us Canadians are much more comfortable with debit cards ("Interac" up here, I think its
Well, if the RFID tag don't broadcast anything, how does the store get any information from it?
It responds to outside stimulation. See my other post, where I describe the sound my champagne glasses make when an airplane flies overhead. While the plane is nearby, I can very clearly hear a sound coming from my glasses. Yet, they're unpowered. They're simply resonating with a particular frequency which is a harmonic of the low-frequency, high-amplitude waves coming from the airplane. When there is no plane nearby, the glasses are silent. But when a plane passes, I can very clearly hear a sound coming from them. A different glass would produce a different sound, and I could thus identify which class I am hearing by sound alone, without even looking. Yet the glasses are unpowered, and are by no means "broadcasting" a sound.
Something that both receives and transmits is called a transceiver.
That's correct. But a passive RFID is not technically a transceiver. Tranceivers are powered. Passive RFID tags are not powered.
Do you honestly think the current state of this technology is as far as it can go?
Not as far, no, but it cannot make the exponential gains like in the examples you cite. Quite simply, we are, and have been for decades now, bound by simple laws of radio wave technology that cannot be easily overcome.
You listed off a bunch of technologies that lend themselves well to scaling, yet with RFID, the limiting factor is not the number of transistors you can fit on a chip, but rather the simple laws of radio waves that scientists have been butting up against for years.
Sure, hard drive capacities have increased exponentially in the last 20 years, but what about something as simple as the practical service life of an AA battery? That hasn't changed significantly in decades. The issue at hand here is radio, so let me use a radio example. 50 years ago (yes, 50, I'm going waaaaay back here to show you that not everything changes as fast as the examples you gave), how far away could you get from a 50,000 watt radio tower and still get a signal? Now, today, how far away from that same 50,000 watt tower can you go and still get a signal? The answer is, "not much farther at all." Sure, we can cram billions more transistors into that radio, but it is still limited by the basic laws of radio waves.
These RFID tags are bound by the same laws. As technology advances, you won't get any more range out of these tags unless we make some kind of fundamental breakthrough in the "power-to-range" wall that we've been up against since the very birth of radio.
That breakthrough isn't coming any time soon, my friend.
The problem is like trying to squeeze more water into a 1L container. You can only fit 1L in. Sure, if you pressurize it, you can squeeze in a little more, but you'll never fit, say, 10L of water in your 1L container, and then expect to get 20L in there a year later (Moore's law?). Your examples are like saying that science will simply invent bigger and bigger containers, which is true, and which is what has happened in the realm of solid-state electronics. But radio isn't like that.
Ah, but I have no bank account. What say you to that?
You're either lying, or a teenager who still lives with his parents.
It is quite simply impossible to live in today's society without a bank account. If you are a normal member of society, then you have a house, and bills. Some of these bills require a bank account to be paid. Yes, that's right. Some of my bills cannot be paid with cash. They will only accept check, credit card, or automatic debit. For example, my electric bill (HydroOne, in Ottawa, Ontario, if it helps). They send me my bill, and ask me to send them payment in t
They don't "broadcast" anything. They're passive receivers. They are unpowered. They respond to radio stimulation. They no more "broadcast" a number than the money in my wallet is "broadcasting" serial numbers.
You:
When powered, they broadcast. They're powered whenever they're within range of a reader.
You apparently do not understand what the words "powered" and "broadcast" mean. Allow me to assist you, as I suspect English isn't your first language.
"Powered" means that a device carries its own power source, such as a battery or a capacitor. The passive RFID tags I'm talking about do not have batteries. Granted, some tags do (they call them "active"), but they are cost-prohibitive and are not planned for the widespread retail use that is presently under debate in this discussion. The RFID tags being referred to here are unpowered. They are simply a small chip with an antenna, that respond with a unique numeric ID when stimlated by radio waves of the right frequency and sufficient power.
"Broadcast" means to actively and autonomously generating radio signals, with no outside input. A radio station, for example, "broadcasts." These RFID tags, however, do not "broadcast," because they are unpowered. They are simply a tiny web of paths in silicon, with a spiral wire encircling them forming an antenna. Its just etched metal, sitting there on a slab of plastic or other base.
Perhaps some analogies will clarify why you're wrong.
Take a reflector off of a bicycle. If you hold it in a dark room, can you see it? Does it "broadcast" light? No, of course not. But when you shine a light at it, it reflects it. A flashlight is "powered." A reflector is not. A flashlight "broadcasts" light. A reflector does not. Is this becoming clear?
Take another example. My house is near an airport. When an airplane flies overhead, the crystal champagne flutes in my dining room resonate. I can hear them, humming in unison an almost perfect concert-G. However, when there is no plane nearby, they sit in silence. Are my champagne glasses "powered?" Do they "broadcast" sound? No. No they do not. They simply respond to outside stimulation from a powered source.
But now, we have RFID. Now, I can walk around with a scanner in my pocket, point it at you while you're out walking about, and get all sorts of nifty information about what you have on your person.
False. All you'd get would be a bunch of numbers. A bunch of very, very big numbers. You might be able to identify brand names in those numbers (as we currently can with UPCs), but the specific product serial numbers would be in the manufacturer's database somewhere well beyond the reach of Mr. Sidewalk Scanner.
So I scan you, and I find out you've got a Sony product of some sort, and 3 other things with manufacturers' IDs that my scanner doesn't recognized.
Heay Bob! What are you doing with that Victoria's Secret black lace bra? Isn't that the one Sally wore in this morning?
You grossly misunderstand the technology.
How, praytell, would your fictional cow-orker know that you're wearing a Victoria's Secret bra? "From the RFID tag," you'll say. "But," I'll respond, "the RFID tag doesn't tell you it's a Victoria's Secret bra. The RFID tag, when prompted, simply shouts back across a short distance, '984867493094867473829!'" In order for your nosy friend to know that that number is a Victoria's Secret bra, he would have to have access to Victoria's Secret's entire product database. Which, of course, he does not.
RFID tags are just numbers, people. One very big number. That's all. Without the database backing it up, the numbers are useless. Sure, if "Bob" walked into a Victoria's Secret store, it is possible that their computer would recognize one of its bras being secretly modeled by "Bob," but everywhere else, it's just a meaningless number.
these transmitters [...] will probably continue to broadcast long after you've purchased your items
False. They don't "broadcast" anything. They're passive receivers. They are unpowered. They respond to radio stimulation. They no more "broadcast" a number than the money in my wallet is "broadcasting" serial numbers.
burglars looking for a house with lots of good stuff in it could drive by with a scanner
False. The scanners used to detect the passive tags can only do so from a short distance (on the order of a few inches, maybe a foot or two). It is extremely technically impractical to build a scanner powerful enough to scan and detect items several dozen yards away. What you're suggesting is as absurd as claiming that my garage door opener will potentially open up garage doors all over the city when I press the button while pulling into my driveway. Not to mention the problem of discerning quantum signals from a mess of more than 5 devices shouting "Here I am!" all at once. These detectors can't discriminate between more than a few tags simultaneously without getting confused.
Also means Uncle Sam could do the same thing to see if you've been buying anything controversial.
False. Uncle Sam, if he were seriously interested, wouldn't waste time driving by your house with one of these massively powerful, imaginary scanners that can read all the tags in your house (while not getting confused with the tags answering from your neighbors' houses). He'd simply use the USAPATRIOT act to subpoena your bank records and see what you've bought.
Once upon a time it was a cherished American right that a man's home was his castle, and what he did behind closed doors was none of anybody's business, especially the government's.
False. People have always sought to dictate what people can and can't do in the privacy of their own homes. Witness the anti-sodomy laws that are still on the books in some places.
Slashdot Mirror
The hydrogen economy is a farce promogulated by existing energy companies who stand to make lots of money providing hydrogen by burning more and more fossil fuels.
Hydrogen can just as easily be produce through renewable resources such as wind, solar, tidal, and hydro power, as well as nuclear. Hydrogen-powered vehicles are coming, make no mistake about it. It's not a question of "if", but rather "when."
Centralizing the generation of the fuel at a hydrogen-generating station (even if run by fossil fuels) is still far better for the environment than spreading a bunch of fuel-burners all over our highways, as is the situation we currently have.
While the references indicate that the actual mileage is lower than what is claimed, the vehicles do get better gas mileage than standard automobiles.
But this is the "Big Lie" of Hybrids. Yes, they get better mileage, but it's not because they're hybrids. It's because they have extremely low CD's (co-efficients of drag), unusually hard and narrow tires, low-friction bearings, lightweight alloys and construction, thinner-than-usual safety glass, and a host of other ounce-pinching compromises. However, the fact that they still have to haul around a couple hundred pounds of lead batteries negates a lot of that efficiency.
Here's the thing they don't want you to know. If you took all that efficiency - the ultra-streamlined body, lightweight alloys and glass, low-friction tires and bearings, and everything else - and put it in a regular car with a small engine (a diesel Golf, a Civic, whatever), the regular car would get better mileage. But it wouldn't qualify technically as "low-emission", because it is always generating (an extremely small amount of) pollutants, while the hybrid has periods of zero-emissions.
Why don't people see this? If you put all that tech into a regular car, they'd get better mileage than hybrids. It's crystal clear.
[If you have a felony conviction on your record,] you lose your right to vote
Not in Canada. In fact, in Canada, starting with this year's federal election, convicted felons can vote
even while they're still in prison.
Most good "popular music" was made at least 20 years ago. If you refer to Britney Spear, N'Sync or Bust-a-Rythm, then I suggess you change radio station once in a while, to hear some music for a change.
You obviously underestimate the scope of the RIAA. While, of course, the "bubble-gum" pop bands on the Top-40 radio stations are all signed to the RIAA, so are a great deal of lesser-known artists. Many of the groups I like are members of the RIAA, and you've probably never heard of them. They make good music, and a lot less than the "20 years" ago that you presume.
There's (unfortunately) more to the RIAA than Britney and NSYNC. They own pretty much everyone worth listening to.
Therefore, they are forcing you to either...
1. buy music with DRM
or
2. pirate music without DRM
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "force". FWIW, nobody is "forcing" either of those 2 alternatives on anyone. People voluntarily choose to patronize those services.
Incidentally, you left off several other options, such as "buy a legal CD and rip it yourself." Nothing illegal about that.
the last thing we want to do is annoy people with a legitimate business.
Hahah, really, is that so? Slashdot would never wish harm on "legitimate businesses," eh? Like the RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft, SCO, etc.?
Now THAT'S news to me.
Do remember that the recipient of an 800 call gets your phone number reported to them.
No they don't. They get a report of the number of complete and incomplete calls made from your area code, in the 3 different time-of-day codes (day, evening, and weekend). They'd see that 20 calls came from your area code, and the total number of minutes in each time-of-day category, but they wouldn't see the individual numbers that made the calls.
Yes, it does mean I have to carry around two or three devises instead of one.
I feel the exact opposite. I don't want to carry a pager, a phone, a gaming console, a radio, a PDA, a camera, and an MP3 player. That's too many devices to buy, too many to carry, too much money to spend, and too much to worry about getting stolen. I just want one device that can do all those things well, and cost less than $500.
We have the technology. Yes, I understand your point about how the individual devices can be "optimised" to do their own thing well, but technology is not static, and as we learn more and more about usability and integration, manufacturers become more adept at creating devices which fill multiple roles just as well as the separate devices would.
Incidentally, I don't own ANY of the devices listed above, precisely because I'm holding out for an "all-in-one" device, which should be along any year now.
Only use people with 100% feedback.
What about people who get ripped off, then leave the seller a negative feedback, to which the seller retaliates and leaves them negative feedback? Then the buyer has a negative feedback on his record, and for what? For complaining about getting ripped off?
Your "100%" threshold seems a little high to me. It discourages people from ruffling feathers and leaving negative feedback in legitimate cases, for fear of tarnishing their own history to anything less than the flawless that buyers like you demand.
Start your own ebay. No one could monopolize the auction business on the internet, find some investor and start rolling.
Evidently, you're unfamiliar with the concept of software patents. You think Amazon can patent "one-click-purchasing," but eBay can't patent the online auction?
Granted, there are other online auctions out there, but they're not as good as eBay. Not because they just can't make a good online auction site, but because eBay has patented the key features that make their site superior.
At eBay you see only some sure_I_m_honest@hotmail.com address and that's only thing you really know about other end.
Well, that, and the feedback.
Take off the tinfoil hat. If someone has great feedback, you're just as safe trusting them as you would be trusting the stranger you just met at the flea market. Moreso, in fact, because you have no idea if the flea-market guy's customers are satisfied. OK, OK, with one notable exception.
Maybe Apple or some other company should start there own music company
Read up a little bit. Apple is legally prohibited from becoming a music company. There's already an "Apple Music" label out there, they were created around the same time as the Beatles. In order to avoid trademark disputes, when Apple Computer was founded (and subsequently litigated against by Apple Music), Apple Computer agreed to stay out of the music arena.
Incidentally, they're already over the line that they weren't supposed to cross, but offically becoming a full-blown recording label would put them squarely in violation of their agreement, and on the hook for billions.
Name a popular band and I'll name the one they are trying to rip off...
The Crystal Method (Prodigy? Who was first?)
Underworld
KMFDM (Rammstein? Again, who was first?)
Fluke
Only if the second half of the show just repeated the stories they already covered in the first half.
What "factual inaccuracies" were in the NYT article? I don't deny the negative spin, but I don't recall anything that was actually, demonstrably, factually incorrect.
If anything, what WPVI did was abuse of journalism, IMO.
One man's "abuse of journalism" is another man's "Freedom of the Press."
Watch out, lest I report you for "abuse of speech."
OK, so it's "stimulation" that's entering the device, entering into electronic circuitry, and causing it to function... but it's not power...
You're simply trying to stretch the definition of "powered" to suit your means, and you're incorrect. You're seeking to broaden "powered" to mean "anything that responds to power." If we take your specious reasoning to its logical extreme, then everything is "powered," because if you apply energy to it, it will do something. This is obviously untrue, otherwise the word "powered" becomes meaningless and redundant, because everything would be "powered."
I'm sorry, but "powered" has a very clear and well-defined definition. It means the object carries its own power source. That's it. That's all. Ugh, how can I make this clearer. Hmm, how about this: your passive RFID tag will respond to stimulation by outputting a signal. However, the power of that signal will always be less than the input power of the stimulant. That is, it is bound by the Law of Entropy. However, if it were "powered," then it would be capable of responding with more power than the amount of energy in the stimulant that triggered its response.
This horse is now officially dead. You don't have to agree with me, but the fact is, I am right. I'm not trying to convince you of my definition, but rather I'm simply trying to help you understand the definition. This is not a subjective idea that is open to debate; it is a simple fact. You claimed that passive RFID tags are "powered," and I'm simply trying to help you understand why that statement is incorrect under common vernacular.
[Re: AA Batteries]I can remember batteries running out more quickly when I was younger, and needing more of them. Although it could just be technology getting better.
You answered your own question there - modern electronics simply use less power, thanks to advances in solid-state electronics. Ergo, given a constant power source, they last longer.
The concept of a device that exists for the sole reason of monitoring my purchase, that I cannot remove once I have purchased it, and which continues to perform a monitoring function once within my home is abhorrant and unacceptable.
I really don't see what the big deal is. It's just a number, and can only be read from short range. Without the database, the number is practically meaningless.
So, let's sum up. Stimulation that enters electronic circuitry and causes it to function is not power.
Oh, no, it is "power" all right. But the simple fact that an object allows "power" to enter it doesn't mean the device is "powered." Take my bicycle-reflector/flashlight example. If I shine a light at both, they're both absorbing "power" and reflecting the beam back somewhere. However, only the flashlight is capable of generating light on its own. It carries a power source (batteries), while the reflector does not.
RFID technology will always use radio
Most likely, yes.
and always in the current frequency range.
Probably not, but it will always be bound by the laws of physics (that is, the power-to-range ratio).
OK, now to your bank account stuff. I'll concede that I made a couple assumptions that didn't hold up. The main one was probably that the US financial system is comparable to Canada's. I've done some research, and apparently, in the US, you have all kinds of different financial institutions that consequently, don't always communicate very well. As a result of this, apparently your framework is much more permissive of cash than ours up here in Canada. Up here, there are only 5 banks. Thus, the financial systems framework is quite well integrated, and retailers can rely on common standards much more readily than in the US. Apparently, us Canadians are much more comfortable with debit cards ("Interac" up here, I think its
It responds to outside stimulation. See my other post, where I describe the sound my champagne glasses make when an airplane flies overhead. While the plane is nearby, I can very clearly hear a sound coming from my glasses. Yet, they're unpowered. They're simply resonating with a particular frequency which is a harmonic of the low-frequency, high-amplitude waves coming from the airplane. When there is no plane nearby, the glasses are silent. But when a plane passes, I can very clearly hear a sound coming from them. A different glass would produce a different sound, and I could thus identify which class I am hearing by sound alone, without even looking. Yet the glasses are unpowered, and are by no means "broadcasting" a sound.
That's correct. But a passive RFID is not technically a transceiver. Tranceivers are powered. Passive RFID tags are not powered.
Not as far, no, but it cannot make the exponential gains like in the examples you cite. Quite simply, we are, and have been for decades now, bound by simple laws of radio wave technology that cannot be easily overcome.
You listed off a bunch of technologies that lend themselves well to scaling, yet with RFID, the limiting factor is not the number of transistors you can fit on a chip, but rather the simple laws of radio waves that scientists have been butting up against for years.
Sure, hard drive capacities have increased exponentially in the last 20 years, but what about something as simple as the practical service life of an AA battery? That hasn't changed significantly in decades. The issue at hand here is radio, so let me use a radio example. 50 years ago (yes, 50, I'm going waaaaay back here to show you that not everything changes as fast as the examples you gave), how far away could you get from a 50,000 watt radio tower and still get a signal? Now, today, how far away from that same 50,000 watt tower can you go and still get a signal? The answer is, "not much farther at all." Sure, we can cram billions more transistors into that radio, but it is still limited by the basic laws of radio waves.
These RFID tags are bound by the same laws. As technology advances, you won't get any more range out of these tags unless we make some kind of fundamental breakthrough in the "power-to-range" wall that we've been up against since the very birth of radio.
That breakthrough isn't coming any time soon, my friend.
The problem is like trying to squeeze more water into a 1L container. You can only fit 1L in. Sure, if you pressurize it, you can squeeze in a little more, but you'll never fit, say, 10L of water in your 1L container, and then expect to get 20L in there a year later (Moore's law?). Your examples are like saying that science will simply invent bigger and bigger containers, which is true, and which is what has happened in the realm of solid-state electronics. But radio isn't like that.
You're either lying, or a teenager who still lives with his parents.
It is quite simply impossible to live in today's society without a bank account. If you are a normal member of society, then you have a house, and bills. Some of these bills require a bank account to be paid. Yes, that's right. Some of my bills cannot be paid with cash. They will only accept check, credit card, or automatic debit. For example, my electric bill (HydroOne, in Ottawa, Ontario, if it helps). They send me my bill, and ask me to send them payment in t
You:
You apparently do not understand what the words "powered" and "broadcast" mean. Allow me to assist you, as I suspect English isn't your first language.
"Powered" means that a device carries its own power source, such as a battery or a capacitor. The passive RFID tags I'm talking about do not have batteries. Granted, some tags do (they call them "active"), but they are cost-prohibitive and are not planned for the widespread retail use that is presently under debate in this discussion. The RFID tags being referred to here are unpowered. They are simply a small chip with an antenna, that respond with a unique numeric ID when stimlated by radio waves of the right frequency and sufficient power.
"Broadcast" means to actively and autonomously generating radio signals, with no outside input. A radio station, for example, "broadcasts." These RFID tags, however, do not "broadcast," because they are unpowered. They are simply a tiny web of paths in silicon, with a spiral wire encircling them forming an antenna. Its just etched metal, sitting there on a slab of plastic or other base.
Perhaps some analogies will clarify why you're wrong.
Take a reflector off of a bicycle. If you hold it in a dark room, can you see it? Does it "broadcast" light? No, of course not. But when you shine a light at it, it reflects it. A flashlight is "powered." A reflector is not. A flashlight "broadcasts" light. A reflector does not. Is this becoming clear?
Take another example. My house is near an airport. When an airplane flies overhead, the crystal champagne flutes in my dining room resonate. I can hear them, humming in unison an almost perfect concert-G. However, when there is no plane nearby, they sit in silence. Are my champagne glasses "powered?" Do they "broadcast" sound? No. No they do not. They simply respond to outside stimulation from a powered source.
Just like passive RFID tags.
Cash is anonymous.
False. Cash has serial numbers. So do bank accounts.
The two are often linked. Do you see where I'm going with this?
I pay with old cash
Bzzzt! Thanks for playing. Cash has serial numbers. You can still be tracked.
So I'm just confused as to how language condones violence while guns do not.
How, exactly, are guns any more inherently violent than knives?
How does an inanimate object "condone" anything?
But now, we have RFID. Now, I can walk around with a scanner in my pocket, point it at you while you're out walking about, and get all sorts of nifty information about what you have on your person.
False. All you'd get would be a bunch of numbers. A bunch of very, very big numbers. You might be able to identify brand names in those numbers (as we currently can with UPCs), but the specific product serial numbers would be in the manufacturer's database somewhere well beyond the reach of Mr. Sidewalk Scanner.
So I scan you, and I find out you've got a Sony product of some sort, and 3 other things with manufacturers' IDs that my scanner doesn't recognized.
Oooo... scary stuff.
Heay Bob! What are you doing with that Victoria's Secret black lace bra? Isn't that the one Sally wore in this morning?
You grossly misunderstand the technology.
How, praytell, would your fictional cow-orker know that you're wearing a Victoria's Secret bra? "From the RFID tag," you'll say. "But," I'll respond, "the RFID tag doesn't tell you it's a Victoria's Secret bra. The RFID tag, when prompted, simply shouts back across a short distance, '984867493094867473829!'" In order for your nosy friend to know that that number is a Victoria's Secret bra, he would have to have access to Victoria's Secret's entire product database. Which, of course, he does not.
RFID tags are just numbers, people. One very big number. That's all. Without the database backing it up, the numbers are useless. Sure, if "Bob" walked into a Victoria's Secret store, it is possible that their computer would recognize one of its bras being secretly modeled by "Bob," but everywhere else, it's just a meaningless number.
False. They don't "broadcast" anything. They're passive receivers. They are unpowered. They respond to radio stimulation. They no more "broadcast" a number than the money in my wallet is "broadcasting" serial numbers.
False. The scanners used to detect the passive tags can only do so from a short distance (on the order of a few inches, maybe a foot or two). It is extremely technically impractical to build a scanner powerful enough to scan and detect items several dozen yards away. What you're suggesting is as absurd as claiming that my garage door opener will potentially open up garage doors all over the city when I press the button while pulling into my driveway. Not to mention the problem of discerning quantum signals from a mess of more than 5 devices shouting "Here I am!" all at once. These detectors can't discriminate between more than a few tags simultaneously without getting confused.
False. Uncle Sam, if he were seriously interested, wouldn't waste time driving by your house with one of these massively powerful, imaginary scanners that can read all the tags in your house (while not getting confused with the tags answering from your neighbors' houses). He'd simply use the USAPATRIOT act to subpoena your bank records and see what you've bought.
False. People have always sought to dictate what people can and can't do in the privacy of their own homes. Witness the anti-sodomy laws that are still on the books in some places.